"because I value kernel security above petty ideological concerns"
This implies that this is the only or main way security is achieved. This is not true. Also, "valuing kernel security above other things"... is an ideological concern. You just happen to value this ideology more than other ideological concerns.
"whether something is ethical is an opinion"
It is, but there are bases for forming opinions on what is moral and ethical. In my opinion, secretly testing people is not ethical. Again, the difference here is consent. Plenty of organizations agree to probing/intrusion attempts; there is no reason to secretly do this. Again, security is not improved only by secret intrusion attempts.
"there's no doubt that many illegal (and arguably unethical) acts of hacking have improved computer security"
I don't believe in the ends justify the means argument. Either it's ethical or it isn't; whether or not security improved in the meantime is irrelevant. Security also improves in its own regard over time.
I do agree that the way the current laws regarding "hacking" are badly worded and very punitive, but crimes are crimes. Just because you like that hacking or think it may be beneficial does not change the fact that it was unauthorized access or an intentional attempt to submit bad, buggy code, etc.
We have to look at it exactly like we look at unauthorized access in i.e. business properties or peoples' homes. That doesn't change just because it's digital. You don't randomly walk up to your local business with a lock picking kit to "test their security". You don't randomly steal someone's wallet to "test their security". Why is the digital space any different?
